Contents

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have editted this to remove rather frequently made, but unfair, criticisms of Bell. In particular the link to criticisms of his treatment of Galois is broken, and in any case Bell is frequently erroneous criticised for being the source of some very fanciful notions concerning Galois. The other was also to an unsupported criticism, and does not seem appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.91.68 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Neitherlink is broken, is it? Neither of them is actually about Bell's book (they only mention it in passing), so it may be fine to remove it. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to put a link to this book, since it's probably a pirate copy? Having died in 1960, I think Eric Temple Bell still has copyright over his works. Also, the text in article Richard Dedekind is a copy-and-paste of this book, and should be removed. Albmont (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Goldstein is inappropriate commentary on Men o' Math in exactly the same way as Men o' Math is supposedly poorish biography. It's gossip. Has any reputable historian weighed in on Bell's accuracy or at least openly expressed the opinion that such an exercise is not worth a reputable historian's trouble? THAT'S what belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.185.250 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)